The proposal to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 annually — one of President Obama's central campaign pitches — continues to be popular among a large majority of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out Wednesday.

Sixty percent of those surveyed support the proposal, compared with just 37 percent who are opposed. The debate over raising taxes on the high-income earners was one of the defining issues of the 2012 campaign, although polls have consistently shown broad support for the proposal backed by Obama and the Democrats.

Meanwhile, an even larger portion of Americans — 67 percent — are opposed to raising the age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 67. Some Republicans such as Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) have suggested raising the Medicare eligibility age as part of their proposal to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff."

Democrats, Republicans and independents also unite in opposition to hiking the entry age for Medicare, with the opposition particularly stiff among Democrats. Opposition to such a change peaks (naturally) among those aged 50 to 64 — the very people who will soon reap those benefits.http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-large-majori...

Top Opinion

The rich and their GOP political pocketeers want us to believe that people are living longer and that is why we must raise the medicare and SS age. But when you look at the statistics, it is only the wealthy that are living longer, not everyone.

It's gotten to the point where the middle class makes nothing at all. They just recirculate their money till payday. The entire Federal Budget for 1940 is a little less than what the Walton Family declares now.

possibly the dumbest answer choices ever. Go ahead and tax the rich, they will leave with all of their taxable income. And frankly you can confiscate all of their wealth and the government will only run for about two weeks. This is the governmet you deserve, you have to take it all. And believe me when I say just look at what is happening in Europe right now, millionaires and billionaires are leaving in mass amounts, Eat the rich will not work.

well lets see....there are twice the regulations on corps and small business's than ever before. And lets not for get that now that monstrosity of a healthcare act has been ruled into as law (now it is justified as a TAX) that business's are not hiring and some are now letting go OR now will be heading out to greener pastures ( countries that have a more positive outlook towards business). You see the majority of small business's are actually just people or a few investors who make more that 250,000 dollars as a whole, they still have to pay overhead, inventory and numerous other expenses before they even cut themselves a check. NOW, they will be facing higher taxes and now they also have to come out of pocket for employees healthcare, guess what? This will BREAK THEM, and THEY WILL either liqudate (selling of everything to regain a portion of their investment or just to retire, hence ending all the employment they create) OR they will leave.

That's an idiotic post. It's obvious to me, that you don't have the sense to understand that thinking that ultra wealthy people should pay a decent percentage on whatever wealth they haven't stashed away, has nothing to do with an "eat the rich" mentality. Gosh, that's just stupid. However, I don't feel sorry that some super rich person may make a little less money.

I remember when the wealthy paid the tax rate that Obama wants them to pay. Guess what?? They didn't have to sleep under bridges, or stand in soup lines. No they didn't, and they even got richer. This all happened under the Clinton administration. So right wing minions do not fret, your billionaire bosses will do just fine!!!!!!!

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do…

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner sug...

No "Undecided" so I picked one:

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do…

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

So, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something VERY important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

That, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

If you can't convince them w/ logic, baffle them w/ BS. In real life, Bill Gates was the 10th man. He declared tax on $56.6 Billion dollars; after taxes, he was down to only $60 Billion. Bush's last year, Exxon declared the greatest earnings of any corp in history. Bush then gave them $4 Billion in subsidies. The difference is, the middle class cannot bring their own bartender.

Chris, Is it ok for the likes of companies such as Amazon, Starbucks and many many more to avoid paying their taxes? These companies make mega bucks at the expense of us and don't pay their taxes while the gov't makes laws that force us to pay ours, if we don't, we end up in law suits and ultimately jail. You may not be rich but these companies are super rich and shouldn't be exempt from the law that we all have to abide by. It's bad enough religious istitutions are exempt from it when they rake it in also. When i say redistribution, i don't mean just hand it out to those who don't work, you don't work yourself chris, does that mean you are lazy? No there is another reason and i know that. I mean redistribute it into sectors where the gov't already do with our taxes, such as education and health more money into creating independant renewable energy etc. Instead our taxes fund and line the pockets of fat cats that use our money to pay for holidays, extra homes for themselves, rediculous expenses that they claim money for, extra cars, trips to wine tasting vineyards at the tune of £10,000, moats around their big posh houses for their ducks!! (i'm serious) not to mention using our money to bail out banks and business' that are on the verge of going bust. Fairer redistribution is key.

The rich already pay 70% of the income taxes. The "poor" are getting a free ride. Last time i checked the "poor" used the same roads, schools, libraries, and all other infrastructure that the rest of us do. The difference is they pay little for the privilege that the rest of us pay dearly for. I think it borders on the criminal for people who pay absolutely no income tax to get a "tax refund" on taxes that they do not pay. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a joke. A family of 5 making over 49K is eligible for over 5K in refunds on taxes they do not even pay. It is time for a flat tax. Everyone pays the same rate. That is the only fair way. The Dimocrats have convinced all the the mind numbed moonbats that the rich and the corporations are eeevilllee. I wonder if they have ever asked a poor man for a job?

The earned income tax credit was implemented under the Reagan administration as a reward for people that were forced to take low wage jobs so that they could fare better than those on welfare.Ronald Reagan called it the greates detterant to welfare that hje had ever seen. Now it seems the wealthy hate to see someone get"something for nothing" so they want to get rid of it.

That is awfully draconian to get rid of it. Then what about ADC and Medicaid and free postage for the blind? And lunch programs for poor children? Free public schools? Free public libraries? Free hospitals for the poor and disabled? And the tantamount program of Obamacare?

Atilla, unless the government redistributed wealth/income, we would all be poorer... dirt poor. The under privileged could not buy the goods and services that feed the merchants and manufacturers, the landlords and governments, the schools and military machine, the farms and utilities. Every society redistributes wealth and income according to the collective values ingrained in its culture. Would you return to brutality of the Stone Age?

I don't know what anyone's fair share is. But I do understand the concept of shared sacrifice. The rich got a tax break a few years back. The break was meant to expire. So let it expire. I don't feel any contempt or envy for the rich but they managed to live well under the Clinton tax rates They'll survive if they have to again.

The wording of the poll is biased and offensive (obviously). It presumes that poor people are actually helped by big government, which is false. Elderly people, by the way, are much better off financially than younger people in the United States, on average. They don't need more government help at the expense of younger workers.

The best way to help the poor is not to have more government programs which mainly benefit the bureaucrats who get paid good money to run them, but to stop criminalizing ways that poor people can become self-sufficient and economically independent:

• Make it legal for people to make money using their cars as taxis to charge people for rides

• Make it legal for people to sell stuff on public streets without a business license or other government taxes or fees

• Eliminate sales taxes so that poor people are not charged extra by government when they buy stuff

• Stop creating inflation (rising prices on goods and services) by the Federal Reserve creating more money out of thin air and reducing the value of every existing dollar -- inflation is a regressive tax that falls heaviest on the poor

Do you believe government will do a better job spending your...

The wording of the poll is biased and offensive (obviously). It presumes that poor people are actually helped by big government, which is false. Elderly people, by the way, are much better off financially than younger people in the United States, on average. They don't need more government help at the expense of younger workers.

The best way to help the poor is not to have more government programs which mainly benefit the bureaucrats who get paid good money to run them, but to stop criminalizing ways that poor people can become self-sufficient and economically independent:

• Make it legal for people to make money using their cars as taxis to charge people for rides

• Make it legal for people to sell stuff on public streets without a business license or other government taxes or fees

• Eliminate sales taxes so that poor people are not charged extra by government when they buy stuff

• Stop creating inflation (rising prices on goods and services) by the Federal Reserve creating more money out of thin air and reducing the value of every existing dollar -- inflation is a regressive tax that falls heaviest on the poor

Do you believe government will do a better job spending your money than you will? Perhaps you want more $1 billion bombers, or six-figure salaries of Washington bureaucrats? If so, I think you're a fool, but you're welcome to write the IRS a bigger check.

If you're not so sure you want to give government more of your own money, then don't support them stealing more of other people's money. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't make it right to rob them. If you have a good cause, persuade people to donate voluntarily. That's the right thing to do. Envy and hate are not pretty.

Socialism does have that effect when people try to impose it by force on a large scale via government. When it is practiced voluntarily on a small scale it can be a beautiful thing. Most families, for instance, function on a more or less socialist basis (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need).